Saturday, October 10, 2015


By Com. G.Vijaya kumar. (published in 'CLASS STRUGGLE' Organ of the Central committee of CPI(ML) July 2015 issue)

Establishing a classless, exploitation and oppression-free Communist society is the ultimate aim of all the Communists in the world. At the same time, they have to go through different stages suitable to the concrete conditions of the country to ultimately reach the goal of Communist society.

In order to be able to determine and realise a particular stage of revolution the Communists are required to define the character of given society in the Country; the classes to be overthrown; the classes to be rallied and united in the revolution; the leader of the revolution; the aims and tasks of revolution. All these put together can be called the strategy of revolution.

In its long life, the Indian Communist Movement has passed through two different periods, in the main. One was the period of colonial rule. Second was the period thereafter. What strategy or strategies of revolution were adopted by the Indian Communist Movement and what problems or differences it encountered in the course of translating the strategy of revolution into practice are the points of study and debate here.

This study and debate are relevant and significant even now because we had witnessed many developments before solving these problems and the Indian revolution is still struggling to complete the stage of New Democratic Revolution.

The Communist Movement in our Country is a product of post- 1917 October Revolution. The Marxist Literature, the international as well as the experiences of our people were within its reach. How the Indian Communist Movement utilised them in the course of leading the Indian revolution is a matter of serious concern for us.

Let us discuss the question by dividing the entire period into two.


Summing up the experiences of 1871 Paris Commune and the 1905 Russian revolution, Lenin has taught that in the era of imperialism and when the Proletariat has come to the fore as an independent, distinct political force, the bourgeoisie cannot lead the bourgeois democratic revolutions consistently and to the end. This class will compromise, collude with the colonial rulers, imperialists and the feudal classes. It will ultimately betray the bourgeois democratic revolutions.

In the face of this situation, the proletariat must take the leadership into its own hands, foil the attempts of the bourgeoisie to harm the revolution and make the democratic revolution victorious.Lenin called these revolutions as New Democratic Revolutions. These teachings were a guide for the Indian Communists.

More than two decades till 1947 were politically most turbulent and revolutionary days for the Indian Communist Movement. It was a time when reformism and revolutionism clashed. It was a time when the urge to end the colonial rule had strongly reflected in the form of rising waves of class struggles, people's movements and political actions of workers,peasants, youth, students, women and other oppressed people. It was a time when the different political streams had tried according to their own understandings and methods to provide the leadership to the national movement. It was a time when the spirit of sacrifice and dedication had overflown in all sections of people. It was a time when the CPI has emerged as a distinct political force and peoples leader in the Country through its most ideal, self-sacrificing and tireless work among the people in the face of many hurdles, repressions and persecutions. It was a time when it led many a struggles like historic Telangana, Tebhaga, Worli, Punnapra-VayalarMymensingh and other peasant revolutionary Movements, working class, student, youth and women movements,progressive, democratic, anti-imperialist protest movements and cultural movement in the Country.

The Communist Party had declared the end of colonial rule and National Democratic Revolution as its aims. Yet, it remains an objective reality that it could not establish the proletariat as the leader of national movement which alone could have led the national democratic revolution in a determined manner and to the end. The crux of the problem here was: What was the assessment and the attitude of the Communist leadership towards the bourgeoisie and the Indian National Congress which were at the helm of the national movement at the time?

Here it will be relevant to recollect the guidance or suggestions provided by the international leadership to the Indian Communists.

Addressing the Students of the University of the Toilers of the East in 1925, Com. Stalin said: [ The “fundamental and new feature” in the Colonial countries like India is ] “not only that the national bourgeoisie has split into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but primarily, that the compromising section of the bourgeoisie has already managed in the main to come to an agreement with imperialism.” “the victory of the revolution cannot be achieved unless this bloc is broken.”

Stalin also pointed out: i) The building of an independent Communist Party,ii) Setting up of a national revolutionary bloc against the bloc of compromising bourgeoisie and imperialism iii) Ensuring the hegemony of the proletariat in the bloc, iv) Emancipating the toiling masses of people from the influence of compromising national bourgeoisie and v) Developing a bond between the liberation movement in the colonies and the proletarian movement in the advanced countries are the immediate tasks of Communists to advance the national liberation movement in India.

Again, in 1928, t he Sixth Congress of Communist International pointed out that the principal tasks the Communists in Countries like India faced with are :”on one hand, to fight against feudalism and pre-capitalist forms of exploitation and to systematically develop the peasant agrarian revolution; on the other hand, to fight against foreign imperialism”. “Without the hegemony of the proletariat.............the bourgeois democratic revolution cannot be carried through to an end, “ “The Communists must unmask the national reformism of the Indian National Congress and oppose all the phrases of the Swarajists and Gandhists, etc., about passive resistance with the irreconcilable slogan of struggle for the emancipation of the country and the expulsion of the imperialists “.

Dimitrov’s Report to the Seventh Congress ( 1935) of the Communist International has called upon the Indian Communists “to support, extend and participate in all anti – imperialist mass activities, not excluding those which are under national reformist leadership. While maintaining their political and organisational independence, they must carry on active work inside the organisations which take part in the ........Congress, facilitating the process of crystallisation of a national revolutionary wing among them for the purpose of further developing the national liberation movement of the Indian people against British imperialism.”

The Communist Party had emerged as a powerful political force with an organised and wide mass base in the Country. But it left the leadership of national movement to the Indian National Congress. The party even accepted its leadership. We know, Gandhi, who was at the helm of national movement, used his methods of passive resistance and peaceful satyagraha, on one hand, to prevent a real anti – imperialist and anti – feudal national liberation movement and, on the other hand, as a means of bargain and compromise with the British colonial rulers. The Communist leadership harboured strong illusions precisely in this kind of bourgeois leadership. Here the Communist leadership, for all practical purposes, had ignored the international guidance or suggestions. It was guided by an orientation or trend which was not helpful to dislodge the bourgeois leadership and bring the proletariat to the fore as the leader of the national movement.

The Year 1939 unleashed significant political developments in the world influencing the course of India’s national movement. The Second World War had begun in 1939. In 1941 ........ the German Fascists had resorted to a war of armed invasion and occupation against Socialist Russia. All the political forces in India were required to respond and react to this international development of far reaching consequences.

In the turbulent political situation of 1942, the leadership of Indian National Congress had expressed readiness to support the British colonial rulers in the Second World War provided they agree to make some promises. The colonial rulers did not agree. So the Congress was compelled to adopt the Aug 9, 1942 Resolution calling for a passive mass protest action. For the Congress Leadership, it was only an act of pressure. But, in practice, the Country had witnessed a big mass upheaval, popularly came to be known as the Quit India Movement.

The questions before the Communist leadership at the time were: How to fight the menace of Fascism internationally? How to defend the Socialist Russia facing the Fascist invasion and occupation? How to protect the interests of national movement in the Country ?

The slogans and policy adopted by the Communist leadership were:-

1. Oppose Fascism and mobilise the public opinion against it.
2. Support the Russian people’s war against the Fascist aggression to defend their Country. Treat this war as a Peoples’ War for India too.
3. Support the war and war preparations of the British Colonial govt. as an immediate task.
4. End of repression against the people and release of the Congress leaders and activists.
5. Strengthen National Defence, promote food production, industrial production and war needs; stop hoarding, black – marketing, avoid protests, strikes, food riots, destructions and anarchic acts, etc.
6. Involve people in National Defence. The Govt. to create the conditions for the formation of a National Govt. in India.

Here it must be noted that several Communist Parties in a situation like India sought to advance the revolutions based on the strength of the national and democratic forces in their Countries, while, at the same time, carrying on an intensive political campaign against Fascism and imperialism and in defence of Socialist Russia. But the policy adopted b y the Communist leadership in India, in essence, amounted to calling for temporarily keeping aside the tasks of the
Indian revolution. This policy had placed the party in a position where it could not play its role in the nation – wide mass upsurge that erupted as part of the 1942 Quit India Movement and get politically isolated from the national and democratic forces at the time.

However, the strenuous, tireless and dedicated work carried on by it had greatly helped the party to retain and expand its links with the vast masses of people. The efforts as well as discussions in the p arty also reflected the urge for a correct orientation and practice in the sphere of strategy of Indian revolution.


The British Colonial rulers and the Indian ruling classes had reached a deal of compromise for the transfer of power at the height of national upsurge in the wake of rout of Fascism in the World.

The questions before the Communists at the time were: What was the nature of the transfer of power? Into the hands of which classes the power was transferred? What changes this development had brought in the strategic stage and basic tasks of the Indian revolution? An organised and dispassionate discussion inside the party was needed to arrive at correct conclusions on these questions.

As part of fast changing attitudes in the given political situation, there reflected three attitudes in the party, in the main, as on 1948.

1. The understanding which saw the new regime as a National Govt.

2. The Political Thesis of the Second Congress of the party held in Feb 28 – Mar 6, 1948 had defined the new govt. as a govt. where the national bourgeoisie was sharing power with imperialism as a junior partner. It also said that it was a state “dependent on imperialism” and “ a satellite state”.“The existing co- relation of forces ....... clearly show that the old phase of Bourgeois Democratic
Revolution is over, a phase in which the bourgeois was in the anti – imperialist camp. Today, the entire trend of events demands.... to surge forward to the defeat of imperialism and its bourgeois allies, and emancipation of the people. It means that Peoples Democratic Revolution has to be achieved for the completion of the tasks of democratic revolution and the simultaneous building up of Socialism.”

3. “The Present Stage and Strategy of Indian Revolution” – popularly known as the Andhra Thesis- presented by the Andhra PC ( which was leading the Telangana Peasant Revolutionary Movement ) to the CC of CPI in April 1948 had characterised the Indian Society as semi – colonial and semi – feudal ruled by the comprodar bourgeois – landlord classes, the stage of Indian revolution as the Peoples Democratic Revolution and called for the building of a UF of revolutionary classes based on the worker – peasant alliance and under the leadership of the proletariat. It has clearly rejected the call of 1948 Second Congress to achieve the democratic and socialist revolutions at one stroke and simultaneously . These were distinctly different views and understandings and they clashed, sharply too in the party at the level of leadership.

Then came the Editorial Article, Jan 27, 1950 of the FOR A LASTING PEACE...........[ Organ of the Information Bureau of the National Liberation Movement in the Colonies. ]. The party leadership in India had reviewed its line in the light of this Editorial and declared a new line and new leadership. In essence, the line and policies proposed by the Andhra Thesis had become the official line and policies of the entire party. The New Democratic Revolution was declared as the stage of Indian revolution. But the new leadership was destabilised even before it could fully settle down and when it was still in the process of taking steps for the implementation of the new line. The controversies had landed the leadership in a serious crisis and led it to go for international
consultations and change of line as well as the leadership. The 1951 Programme of the CPI had come only in this wake.

The 1951 Programme has characterised the Indian society as semi –colonial and semi-feudal. It said that the state in India is pledged “ to protect and preserve the parasitic landlords, the wealth of Indian princes and imperialism”. It is also subservient to imperialism. It called upon “ the toiling millions, the working class, the peasantry, the toiling intelligentsia, the middle classes as well as the national bourgeoisie .... to unite into a single democratic front in order to attain complete independence of our Country, the emancipation of the peasants from the oppression of the feudals ..... “ It stood for a Peoples Democratic Revolution.

But, within a short time, the Programme was kept aside in practice and party leadership was found itself entangled itself in controversies and discussions on some aspects of the Programme. Whatever discussions or debates were there inside the party from 1952 onwards, they were centered around, in the main, on the class nature of the Indian bourgeoisie, that too, within the frame of the attitude that the Indian bourgeoisie was pursuing a path of independent capitalist development.

Madurai Congress of the Party held in 1953-54 brought to the fore the “ defend the independence” formulation in place of “ achieve the independence”. It also embraced the “ united democratic front” slogan in place of the strategic slogan, “ people’s democratic front”.

Beginning with the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU held in 1956 and by the Twenty Second Congress of 1960, Khrushchev came to the fore with his modern revisionist policies in a full-fledged manner. We can say that the CPI had wide sections in its leadership as well as ranks, who held views akin and closer to the views propounded by Khrushchev.

The Palghat Congress held in 1956 had called India as a “ new, independent and sovereign country.” The central leadership found itself divided into two sections. One advocated the National Democratic Front, the other advocated the Peoples Democratic Front.

The 1960 Vijayawada Conference has called upon the party to “ extend support to Nehru Govt. against the attacks of reactionary forces”; “ defend the progressive policies of the govt;” “forge unity with the progressive Congress men and the people following the Congress;” “ we can come to power through PDF and on the basis of a minimum programme.”

The Communist Party had split in the wake of intensifying differences and developments in the Country and world . They consolidated separately as CPI and CPI (M) in 1964 with their own Programmes and leaderships.

The CPI’s Programme of 1964 said that there exists a national govt. in India and it is pursuing a non – capitalist path of economic development. It also said this govt. is faced with hurdles from the right reactionary forces and, as against this, we must extend support to the progressive policies of the govt.

The 1964 Programme of the CPI (M) said that the Indian state is “ a class rule of the bourgeoisie and landlords, led b y the big bourgeoisie, who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital in pursuit of the capitalist path of development.”

Thus in their evaluations of Indian bourgeoisie, both the CPI and CPI (M) view it as a national bourgeoisie. The CPI (M) says that the Indian bourgeoisie is pursuing a dual policy towards imperialism, ie., compromise and struggle. But here it had only pointed out a nature of national bourgeoisie, but nothing more.

Both the parties, in their programmes, had expressed their readiness to utilise the opportunities to form the coalition or intermediary govts. In reality , this policy is rooted in the policy adopted by the then united Party in 1953 – 54.

Thus differences have manifested and views clashed at various levels and all through the life of the Party mildly or sharply on various aspects of the strategy of Indian revolution, , the character of society, stage, targets of revolution and the concept and practice of the UF. This clash, however, was uneven, unorganised and lacked continuity and comprehensiveness. Diverting the discussion from the main or serious issues to less serious or non – issues had been one phenomenon which harmed the discussion and prevented the polarisation and clinching of issues. A well organised system of discussing the issues in the light of ideology, experiences and facts and clinching the issues in accordance with the principles of Democratic Centralism has not developed in the Party.

During 1962 – 68, the questions connected with the strategy of Indian revolution had come in for a sharp debate in the Party as part of the debate on international ideological questions and led to a polarisation of ideas as well as forces in the Indian Communist Movement.

The Communist Revolutionaries were divided from the beginning and worked as separate groups. At the same time, almost all of them had declared the character of Indian society as semi – colonial, semi –feudal; targets of revolution as imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capital and the stage of revolution as New or Peoples Democratic Revolution.

A trend that negated the existence of national bourgeoisie had manifested in a section of CR leadership in the early period. Again in the early period, the word neo colony too was used by the CRs, but it was used to mean ‘semi- colony’ alone.

The world as well as India had witnessed many political developments and changes in the last more than four decades. It is quite natural for the Communists to study these developments and changes and apply to the concrete practice of Indian revolution. This must be a continuous and unending process.

We are now facing several questions as well as points of differences that affect the strategy and practice of indian revolution. Some of them are like this :

Some say, that it is true the imperialist plunder and control are growing in our Country. But, the capitalism too is developing here. So, Indian revolution must be a Socialist Revolution.

Some say, India is still in the stage of NDR. But, in the conditions when the imperialist plunder and domination had grown enormously, we must direct the edge of our struggle now against the imperialism, in the main.

Some are of the view that there is no feudalism in India today or it does not exist in the old classical form or it is weakened. The capitalist relations and methods are expanding in the rural areas. So, we must discuss how far the democratic task of NDR is relevant or important even today ?

Some argue that India is a neo colony, but not a semi-colony.

However, they do not propose any strategic stage other than the NDR.They are not taking into consideration of the fact that India is still continuing to be a field for competition among various imperialist Countries for plunder and domination. They are not caring to take note of the fact that the regimes here cannot be characterised as puppets of a single imperialist power and they cannot
be placed in the category of Countries like Iraq.

If one still thinks that india is a neo colony, they must state that India today is in the stage of national liberation against imperialism. We are seeing today in Venezuela and some other Latin American Countries the national and democratic forces had withstood the imperialist conspiracies, machinations and threats by organising the people, seized the power and are carrying out some pro-people reforms.

We the Communists must definitely take note of this development. The developments like this would, no doubt, enthuse the people in other Countries to further strengthen and advance the struggle against imperialism. But some are not seeing this as an experience, but as a model to be adopted and as an alternative to the revolutions for fundamental changes, as an interim, relatively easily and immediately achievable solution. This thinking, however, has nothing to do with Marxism.

We can continue the discussion and study of the experiences. In recent times and in some Countries ( the Arab Countries as well as India ), some protests have come up on the questions like corruption, economic burdens, unemployment and autocracy. Some of these protests had grown into mass upsurges and even toppled the regimes. In this background, the questions are being raised why Communists can not make the attempts for such protest movements?

The Communists must always be concerned about the general and democratic issues of the people while, at the same time, concentrating on the work aimed at bringing fundamental changes in the society. They must utilise those occasions to strengthen the struggle for fundamental changes and the unity among the people for it. They must take care not to get deviated, diverted and swept away along the general stream. We must evaluate the class and political forces as well as the aims of the protests that are coming up with no role or leadership of the Communists.

We must keep in mind that certain protests are coming up as part of the attempts of the ruling classes to divert the people from the real problems, water down the peoples discontentment and anger and use the protests as a means of resolving the problems among the sections of the ruling classes and to see that the peoples consciousness does not cross the limits and always revolve within the frame of existing exploiting system.

TO CONCLUDE When we are discussing the differences on the strategy of Indian revolution, we are faced with one difficulty. It is not always possible to arrive at evaluations on the parties just basing on their documents. Some times, we find the practices different from the understandings formulated in the documents. Therefore, we must be careful while discussing the differences.
Our present discussion is an attempt to understand how the Indian Communist Movement had dealt the question of understanding and practice of the strategy of Indian revolution and what problems or differences remain yet to be dealt today. We are confident that a healthy and dispassionate exchange of opinions, experiences and discussion on the questions would greatly help to deepen, enrich our understanding and make our steps more powerful, decisive and fruitful towards our goal of NDR in India.


Monday, September 28, 2015


Statement from Bihar State committee of Communist Party of India (Marxist – Leninist) CPI(ML)

Defeat BJP led NDA Alliance.
Reject the Grand Alliance of JD (U), RJD & Congress!
Vote for the Communist Revolutionaries, Left, Democratic & Patriotic forces!

Bharatiya Janata Party, under the guidance of its mentor organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is spreading, as well as helping other Sangh outfits, communal ideology and politics to divide the people of different religious faiths in different parts of the country including Bihar. These organizations indulge in vicious rumour mongering to foment hatred among people having different
religious faiths, leading to social tension and also in some places communal riots.

RSS, with the support of the Central Govt. is placing its people in important positions in institutions of national importance like Indian council of Historical Research (ICHR), IITs (Indian Institute of Technology ), IIMs (Indian Institute of Management), Film Institute in PUNE, to name a few. Not only that BJP Govt. in Gujarat and Haryana have introduced,so called history books by Batra, which depicts mythology as real history of India, in school curriculum of the respective states.

BJP Govt. at the centre and states are making Herculean efforts to take away whatever rights the working class and peasantry have at present. This Govt. has tried its best to amend the Land Acquisition Act in favour of Indian corporate and Business Houses, and Foreign Multinational Corporations. Effort is to amend the law in a way that makes it possible to snatch the land of peasants and gift it to the Foreign MNCs and Indian Industrial and Business Classes.The labour law is being amended to suit the afore said exploiters and looters in a way that workers
could be hired and fired at the will of the Industrial and Business Classes.

Narendra Mod’s principal slogan of “Make in India” is an effort to invite foreign based multinational corporates (mostly from imperialist countries) in a big way to invest in India. For this Modi Govt. is trying to provide them cheap land, cheap labour, cheap raw materials (mineral, water, power etc), so that they could get large benefits from these investments. In the process the peasants, the workers, the unemployed, etc. would suffer badly.

Considering all these facts BJP led alliance is the main enemy of common people and democratic progress of the country. Hence they must be defeated in the election.

The Grand Alliance of Janata Dal (United), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and Congress is contesting the election together in the name of fighting communalism. But these parties have ruled the state for long time and ignored the needs and aspirations of the people. RJD and JD (U) are claiming to be the champions of social justice. But these parties have ruled the states for nearly two decades but the condition of the people is extremely bad. Congress also ruled this state for decades, which did not solve the problems of the people. Bihar still is very backward and poor. 

The development model of NDA, UPA or Grand Alliance is the same i.e., the policy of imperialist globalization, privatization and liberalization, which favours the rich and robs the poor. These parties divide the people on caste lines, and take their support. After the election these parties indulge in opportunist and corrupt politics, and serve the interest of the Indian ruling classes, big comprador bourgeoisie, landlords, contractors and imperialist institutions. So people should reject these forces
in the election.

In this situation people should support the Communist Revolutionaries, left, democratic and patriotic forces. The left parties, though they have taken a reformist and compromising approach towards the ruling system, oppose the Central Govt. efforts to suppress the workers, peasants and other sections of the people. These parties also oppose communalism politically and ideologically. So, we offer them a critical support, we criticize their vacillation and
compromising approach towards the ruling classes, that we support them when they fight for rights of the workers, peasants and other sections of the masses.

With this approach CPI (ML) Bihar state committee appeals the people of Bihar to defeat communal, casteist, opportunist, pro-rich political forces and support CRs, left democratic and patriotic forces

The Bihar state committee has decided to contest in 6 constituencies and support an independent candidate.

The following seats the party is contesting :-

Constituency                       Name of the Candidate
1. Dehri on Sone        -           Com. Muneshwar Gupta
2. Sasaram                  -           Com. Chandrama Ram
3. Karahgar                 -           Com. Deena Nath Pandit
4. Chainpur                 -           Com. Prahlad Bind
5. Sahebganj                -           Com. Md.Azimullah Ansari
6. Bochaha                   -           Com. Uday Chaudhary

Supported by Party
1. Nokha                        -           Mrs. Yashoda Kushwaha

Bihar State Committee
25 September 2015

Monday, September 14, 2015



BY COM.ALOKE MUKHERJEE. (published in 'CLASS STRUGGLE' Organ of the Central Committee of CPI(ML) June, 2015 issue.)

Of late among the Marxist- Leninist circles, a notion has developed that the Indian society is no more a semi-feudal and semi- colonial society. A change has taken place in Indian society, especially in rural India in the mode of production. For some people, due to the prevalence of capitalist mode of production we can no longer call it a semi-feudal society. To some people, who are much closer to the reality feels that some changes have taken place, but that cannot be defines as capitalist development, but it is a transitional phase. True, that the both sides have tried to study the changes that have taken place in the Indian society since sixties of last century. It is also true they are serious enough to ponder over the changes that have taken place. But with all respect to them it is found that the changes have over awed their method of looking at much, in cases at all importance to the inter connectivity and inter relationship between imperialism, the objects empirically in a superficial manner. They have looked at the society in partial manner without giving comprador bureaucratic capital and feudalism. Moreover, they have not given proper attention to the role of imperialism in the changes that have taken place in agrarian India. Even they have forgotten how even in the British period a process of “erosion and retention” of feudalism
was carried on, but overall feudal mode did not change. It must be emphasized that there can be no semi-feudalism, so far as the social system is concerned. That is one of the reasons, all most all the Marxist-Leninists till a few years ago felt that there were two basic contradictions - feudalism verses broad masses, and imperialism verses the people of India. So basically the crux of the problem is that whether the changes have ushered in a new mode of production or not and if not what the changes signify, what is its relationship with imperialism, why do we call the society semi-feudal and semi-colonial and other relevant issues?

Whether A New Mode of Production has Developed?

Most of those who feel that new mode of production has come into existence or in the ‘transitional phase' argue that there has been a commodification of agrarian product on a substantial scale.They simply forget that commodity production was there in slave society, in feudal society proper,even in ancient India. Marx had himself pointed out:

“In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodity, and therefore conversion of men into producers of commodities holds a subordinate place, which however increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution” (Capital Vol.1,p.33)

Some may argue that “yes, that is what we are talking about, the approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution”. But in that case, we will have to take cover into Marx again :

“No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individual in performance of their labour, appear at all events as their mutual personal relations and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labor” (Capital Vol.1,P.82)

For the sake of briefness we are not going into details, but what Marx has shown in the old mode of production in Europe, is still prevalent in India. One of the most common example is the prevalence of caste system in India and the role it plays in social relations and individual performance of labor.

But the problem that is confronted in the issue of mode of production really becomes complex and real one when the use of machinery in agricultural as well as artisan’s field is taken into serious study. Because in this case, the problem cannot be understood in its real depth until and unless we take imperialism and its hold in a country, in this case in India, seriously.

Here too let us start with quoting Marx:
“long before the period of modern industry, co-operation and concentration of the instruments of labor in the hands of few, gave rise, in numerous countries where these methods were applied in agriculture, to great, sudden and forceful revolutions in the modes of production, and consequently in the conditions of existence and the means of employment of rural populations. But this context at first takes place more between the large and the small landed proprietors, than between capital and wage laborer, on the other hand, when the laborers are displaced by the instruments of labour, by sheep, horses etc, in this case force is directly resorted to in the first instance as the prelude to the industrial revolution. The laborers are first driven from the land, and then come the sheep. Land grabbing on a great scale, such as was perpetrated in England, is the first step in creating a field for establishment of agriculture on a great scale. Hence this subversion of agriculture puts on, at first, more the appearance of a political revolution”

“The instrument of labor, when it takes the form of a machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman himself. The self expansion of the capital by means of machinery is then forward directly proportional to the number of work people, whose means of livelihood have been destroyed by the machinery. The whole system of capitalist production is based on the fact that the workman sells his labor power as a commodity. Division of labor specializes this labor power, by reducing it to skill in handling a particular tool become the work of a machine, then with the use value, the exchange value too, of the workman’s labour power vanishes ...” (Capital. Vol.1,p.405-06)

Begging pardon for such extensive quotation let us look into the objective reality in India. Here,too, gradually, machinery such as tractors and power tillers are being introduced more and more. It is also true the number of wage laborers is increasing in rural India. But one primary aspect of grabbing of land nu large landed proprietors is not found. Even though the central government is adamant to pass a legislation for acquisition of agricultural land for infrastructural development, large scale of forest lands are being handed over to big bourgeoisie for mineral extraction. But concentration of agricultural land to big proper tiers are not happening. One may raise as an argument the ‘contract farming’ in large areas by foreign and domestic big capitalists. But that agriculture is done more as commercial activity of those capitalists to gain control over the raw materials for their industries than developing a capitalist mode. It is more a semblance with the indigo planters forcing the peasants to cultivate indigo in Eastern India.

But is it not true that a large section of peasants and agricultural laborers are being forced out of the agrarian sector to find out livelihood elsewhere? Have we not seen large scale migration of agricultural laborers of southern and western India to act as masons and helpers to masons and other menial work abroad? At the same time, from eastern and north eastern India the laborers are
moving towards those places not to fill in the agricultural labor sector but work of those people who are going to middle east and other places?

So what actually happening in the agrarian scenario as well as mode of production? In the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, it is a fact that so long as a country cannot get itself freed from the shackles of imperialism, development of independent capital is nearly impossible. There might be some exceptions here and there, but even they are not allowed to function for long and forced to be brought under the control of finance capital of imperialism. But such development itself creates a complex situation. The discussion of those complexities is related very much to the appearance and essence of the changes in agrarian system and how far can we call it capitalist mode’ or ‘transitional form’ meaning transition towards capitalist mode of production.

Imperialism in Agricultural and Industrial Development of India :

We will have to be very brief in discussing this issue. Such brevity may not always be the soul of wisdom, rather sometimes it rises questions on the wisdom of the author. But that risk has to be taken here because it is not a book, but seminar paper.

Initially, imperialism treated its colonies as suppliers of cheap raw materials and cheap labor. In the case of countries like India, it was market for its finished goods also. British rulers in its colonial phase, found that the caste based society can easily be ruled if a section of the upper castes, who were very powerful, can be brought under the control of British Raj and an wedge is driven between the two great religious communities in India. So they developed a new type of
feudal lords through permanent settlement, Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems. Such an arrangement helped them a lot to get hold of cheap sources of raw materials and cheap labor, The more the capitalism in Britain developed into imperialist phase, the more need of exporting not only finished goods, but also finance capital became urgent. In this effort they did two things at a time.. 

Firstly,they themselves invested directly, at the same time, from among the commercial traders who were hand in glove with them to expand their commerce and trade were allowed to invest in industries. The British helped them not only with funds from the banks but also with technical know how by selling their obsolete machineries to them. Thus a dependent feudal class and a comprador capital developed. The feudal character of the society helped imperialism not only to gain control over cheap raw materials and cheap labour, but also to driven wedge between different communities and castes in the country. Moreover, it destroyed indigenous development of capital and also development of knowledge. Thus not only economically but also politically and culturally the Indian society was placed under imperialism and feudalism.

But with the passage of time rural masses of the people started revolting against the feudal lords.At the same time, during the World War II, British imperialism found that certain development of industry was necessary, but the feudal bondage was an impediment. They opted for certain reforms on land. Floud Commission Report advised some changes in the zamindari system. But by the time it could be enforced British had to give up their direct rule in India. After 1947, imperialism remained there, but it changed its form instead of direct colonial rule, neo colonial method was adopted. Moreover, in India, not only the British, but also other imperialist masters started contending for neo colonial possession.

In this situation, zamindari abolition and ceiling laws were enacted. This did not mean change of feudal exploitation. It was only a method of eroding a part to retain the basic character. From then on many changes have taken place. It is true that concentration of land into a few hands changed a lot from 1947 to 1960's to present time.

But imperialism as a moribund capitalism faces crises one after another. During 1960's it felt that it needed entry into the agrarian sector. It had to sell its commodities there. The needed market for fertilizers, pesticides, high yielding seeds etc. At first they started with certain pilot projects like Intensive Area Development Programme (IADP) in certain selected areas such as Bardhaman district in West Bengal, Godavari and Krishna Delta in AP, Kaveri Delta in TN etc.But the land owners with their feudal character were not very much interested in increasing yield. So another spate of ceiling laws and operation Barga was taken resort to. This is another step of ‘erosion and retention’ method applied by the imperialist hucksters. Any in-depth analysis of operation Barga, which is exhibited as a great step forward in land reforms will prove this. By this, the ruling classes assured that the possessors of land will get a substantial share of yield, the producer bargadar will have to part with that portion of produce to landlord. Only change was that if he is recorded the landlord cannot evict him. What was the need for such a reform?

The sharecropper would be allowed to get loan against his recorded land to buy fertilisers, HYV seeds. Pesticides etc. Very soon, a change was brought in not in the mode of production, but in the production itself. All most all the agricultural products paddy, wheat, potato, cotton, tomatoes etc. were that of HYV seeds. The HYV seeds needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides. To get water pump sets came into the market.. This design helped imperialists to gain stronghold over the agricultural activities. Soon tractors were introduced. Some cases there were power tillers.

This created a two fold change. Agriculture became more dependent on imperialist industrial products and more and more laborers were needed for the agricultural activities at the outset. So not only the land holders but also the peasants as well as laborers at first greeted it. But when tractors and power tillers were introduced need of agricultural laborers reduced.

One can easily find without much change in relations of production, changes have taken place. As a result, dichotomies have appeared. In areas where the method of agrarian activities changed earlier, at first had increase in agricultural laborers, but after few years it reduced, and agricultural laborers had to take other labouring activities. Since the industrial capital has not developed, they had to go for artisan works like masonry or tertiary areas like rickshaw pulling or auto driving etc.

Secondly, in rural areas a section of the people are grown who advances loans to peasant producers at a very high interest rates, and the loaned amount and interest is to be paid in kind.with produce. The same people are in most cases traders of fertilisers, pesticides and even tractors and power tillers in some cases, and in many cases they are owners of tractors which are rented out on hourly basis. The same section in many cases are connected with the ruling parties in the states. As a result, they are also controllers of MNREGA work and many other related things that are important for the livelihoods of the people. They have land holdings, but to the limits of ceiling laws. As a whole, their exploitation has an extra economic portion which is not capitalist, we can call them bureaucratic feudal, since they have developed as a class almost all over India. They are conduits for imperialist agribusiness.

Thus it is clear that in the rural areas changes have taken place. But due to stranglehold of imperialism these changes cannot change the mode of production. True, the big landlords have reduced to a great extent, but in the same areas they still exists.

But mode of production has not changed to capitalism, with the new capitalistic instruments, the mode is still pre-capitalist. Since certain changes have taken place people call it as semi-feudal,because of its feudalistic character.. We should also be clear that there can be no semi-feudalism,just as there can be no semi- colonialism. As feudalism cannot act in its proper economic, political
and cultural systemic manner, the way it present itself under imperialism is semi feudal. This is why in our effort to find out the principal contradiction we formulate that it is between the alliance of imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism on one side and broad masses of people on the other.

Those who talk about the transitional phase are not clear about transition between whom. Whenever we call something as a transitional phase, we always try to point out between which two points the transition is being discussed. In the presence of imperialism such transition is almost impossible.Because may allow comprador capital to develop, but it cannot allow development of capital in agriculture, Because through their finance capital they can control comprador bureaucratic capital,but it is impossible to control millions of millions of peasant holders if they can develop as capitalists. The suicides of cotton growing peasants in Marathwada and AP, potato growers in West Bengal show that dream of agrarian capitalism cannot be achieved without a revolutionary change. A real land reform as well as freeing agriculture from imperialist shackles is the need of the hour.

Visitors">free counters